connecting*the*dots

10 Responses to “Who Do You Trust Regarding Net Neutrality?”  

1. 1 vanderwal May 14th, 2006 at 10:43 am

   What a farce the McCurry site is. No mention of the telecoms? People and content providers at odds with each other? Do they think people are morons?

   I have been watching what the Europeans have been doing by making broadband internet connections a public good that is just like sewage, water, electricity, roads, etc. They have fiber to the door of citizens in big cities as well as secondary and terciary towns. People are paying about 15 Euros (about 20 U.S. dollars) for fiber to their door. In the U.S. the same is 75 dollars. In the U.S. 80 percent of broadband is dark, not used, but in Europe it is being used.

   So, we have a campaign that fogets that party that will benefit (the telecoms). They want to charge more for the little used service, which will drive down usage. But, none of this truth makes it into their lies?

   Odd thing is McCurry used to be smart and open.

2. 2 Richard Bennett May 14th, 2006 at 6:37 pm

   Actually, dude, Searls and McCurry are on the same side of the regulation debate. Searls fears unintended consequences flowing from the Markey Amendment. You should, you know, read his blog: http://doc.weblogs.com/2006/05/02#yeastConfection

3. 3 Sean Coon May 14th, 2006 at 7:56 pm

   @vanderwal: the flash piece is their machinima piece; easy to digest, controversial tone, click and move to read more… legislation in our congress would have to have some built-in, seriously agile components to succeed. maybe the european beurocratic system can handle it…

   @bennett: heh..

4. 4 Doc Searls May 15th, 2006 at 12:49 pm

   Richard is right: I’m in the Libertarian camp (which is not where Mike McCurry is, fwiw) on the Net Neutrality debate. But I’m also concerned about shilling by the likes of McCurry, and the efforts by carriers at the state level to push new legislation that guts local authority over cable and telco franchising, among other things.

   The carriers need competition and disruption. The best of that will come from opening up, not closing down. Legislation tends to do the latter.

5. 5 Sean Coon May 15th, 2006 at 2:58 pm

   hey doc, yeah, the whole debate is layered and confusing, just as much as the various propositions of legislation (which is why i thought positioning you and mccurry next to one another might get an interesting thread going). i became aware of the legislation being pushed by telcos when i read the cnet article, Net neutrality fans lose on Capitol Hill. that had me rallying for net neutrality representation in, what i deemed to be, foregone legislation — legislation heavily leaning in the telcos SOP business model, or more directly stated: our way or fuck off.

   so i really don’t know where to stand on this one; i’m all for open markets determining themselves, but if the telcos have a lobbying arm to help steer the outcome in their favor, then it seems like we only have a few options: 1) fight back via grassroots 2) join the legislative conversation or 3) both

   #1 is rough because this fight isn’t a priority, nor an obvious battle for most americans (including many businesses that understand the closed model) and #2 is loaded, well, because of the lobby power and the finite, non-agile avenues available in our bureaucratic legislative system.

6. 6 carter May 15th, 2006 at 3:16 pm

   In the meantime, the beginnings of big brother

7. 7 carter May 15th, 2006 at 3:19 pm

   Amd more big brother

8. 8 Richard Bennett May 16th, 2006 at 6:08 am

   Sean, it strikes me that the Google’s “Save the Internet Coalition” has pumped more disinformation in the blogosphere about the COPE Act than the telcos have. How many people have you seen saying that this new law will enable the telcos to make some blogs load faster than others, when what it’s really about it Voice over IP?

   The proponents of more regulation justify it on the grounds that some mythical abuses will happen some day, but none of the stuff they predict has ever happened even though it’s been legal ALL ALONG for ISPs to favor some sites over others. They haven’t done it because it’s stupid business, not because the law didn’t allow it.

   You can defeat bad business practices in the marketplace, just as we always have. There’s no crisis here, at least not yet.

9. 9 Sean Coon May 16th, 2006 at 9:30 am

   well, i’m a skype and vonage customer (i know, i need to narrow it down), so that news isn’t any better. the news that i’ve heard is that the telcos want to make a tiered system and google hasn’t played ball.

   if you want to help me understand the nature of this debate, break down the article/legislation i mentioned above.

10. 10 Jim Lippard Jun 16th, 2006 at 3:37 pm

    The main point of the COPE Act is to give the telcos the ability to compete with cable companies by offering digital television (with national rather than municipal franchising). It also gives the FCC the power to enforce the “four freedoms”–preventing Internet providers from blocking competing services or websites, for example–by imposing $500,000 fines.

    The Markey “net neutrality” amendment to the COPE Act which was defeated would have imposed additional regulations prohibiting telcos from charging more for higher levels of tiered service (QoS).

    See also http://lippard.blogspot.com/2006/04/talking-points-memo-gets-it-completely.html

    and, if you’re more ambitious,

    http://lippard.blogspot.com/2006/06/net-neutrality-index.html